2012-08-08 Board of Ethics minutes

Home

Ms. Schoen said the Board only has jurisdiction over matters that are covered by the Code. If it was not in the Code, the Board did not have jurisdiction. She could not tell Ms. Napeahi where to take her complaint. Her job is to represent the Board and advise them as to whether or not they are doing everything properly and following the rules. This is what is done in every petition filed with the Board. Each one is reviewed to see if there is sufficient information and whether they have jurisdiction. They are bound by the County Charter. Ms. Napeahi said that what Ms. Schoen was saying, then, is that the Board does not have jurisdiction. Ms. Schoen said that the Board has to determine that. The three members present will make that determination. Ms. Napeahi said that Mr. Dill had already told her the complaint doesn’t have teeth, so what did that mean? Mr. Dill said that when looking specifically at the Code of Ethics, it did not cover the matters in her complaint. This is why petitioners are required to reference what sections of the Code they feel are being violated. He said that from her own admission at the prior meeting, it was difficult to “stick” her complaint to the two Code sections she cited. There are ways to add to the Code, but any changes would need to be approved by the County Council. Ms. Napeahi asked whether, if she were to go to the council chair with amendments or additions to the Code, they would need to go through the process of council approval. Mr. Dill said yes, that is how the process works. If the Ethics Code is lacking, then changes need to be made by going through the proper channels. Ms. Napeahi said she had gone through the entire Code, and the sections she cited were the only way she could see to address her complaint. There are important issues happening that apply to their lives. Ms. Napeahi asked Mr. Henricks whether he was a judge, and he replied that he had been a part-time judge. Ms. Napeahi said there are two people sitting in the room that she has not seen in attendance at some of the testimonies given during the past three months at council meetings. Then she would see them appear right before judgment is to be made amongst the council members. She asked Mr. Henricks how judgment can be made if you are not in attendance to hear the testimonies that are important for people to hear. She said she came here today knowing that her complaint would not succeed, and that exactly what happened today she knew was going to happen. She knew it was going to be thrown out the window. And now she was being told there was no other way but to go back to Chair Yagong to make the decision about what is right and important for her people. She stated that Mr. Onishi and Mr. Ikeda had made decisions about important issues for the people in Puna—issues dealing with relocation, health studies, and an evacuation plan. They had already made the decisions on their own, prior to the issues coming before the council, and without listening to the people.